tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post6563138489745038402..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Republican voters are completely insaneRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger221125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-545646473108859642019-03-23T11:07:45.811-07:002019-03-23T11:07:45.811-07:00> Substituting Leprechauns, the question is no ...> Substituting Leprechauns, the question is no longer living, forced, or momentous<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question<br /><br />But it doesn't matter. The existence of Leprechauns is a question of *fact*. Either leprechauns exist (as something other than <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html" rel="nofollow">fictional Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2952475547548940752019-03-20T19:56:28.459-07:002019-03-20T19:56:28.459-07:00To Ask the Overwhelming Question
@Ron:
>Do a g...<b>To Ask the Overwhelming Question</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>Do a global search and replace of the word "God" with the word "Leprechauns" in his essay and it remains every bit as valid as it was before, which is to say, not at all.</i><br /><br />Substituting Leprechauns, the question is no longer living, forced, or momentous -- and not a "genuine option." &Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14166616821226018492019-03-20T11:38:04.180-07:002019-03-20T11:38:04.180-07:00> James easy [sic] is about whether or not God ...> James easy [sic] is about whether or not God exists<br /><br />Yes, I know. But he's simply *wrong*. Do a global search and replace of the word "God" with the word "Leprechauns" in his essay and it remains every bit as valid as it was before, which is to say, not at all.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-2918901270479441242019-03-20T01:42:56.867-07:002019-03-20T01:42:56.867-07:00Frankenthread
>> James gives two cases wher...<b>Frankenthread</b><br /><br />>> James gives two cases where we may will to believe in the absence of rational justification.<br /><br /><i>>Fair enough. But the question of whether or not God exists doesn't fall into either of those categories.</i><br /><br />Interesting, as James easy is about whether or not God exists is one of those categories -- and, in fact, was the Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-37952754659686523152019-02-23T03:09:26.793-08:002019-02-23T03:09:26.793-08:00> James gives two cases where we may will to be...> James gives two cases where we may will to believe in the absence of rational justification.<br /><br />Fiar enough. But the question of whether or not God exists doesn't fall into either of those categories.<br /><br />> Myths are durable containers for memes.<br /><br />Indeed they are. And I have written in defense of them:<br /><br />https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/09/Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-77194846629883875232019-02-22T23:38:23.746-08:002019-02-22T23:38:23.746-08:00Pragmatism
>No. Belief happens after you'v...<b>Pragmatism</b><br /><br /><i>>No. Belief happens after you've accumulated enough evidence that you don't feel the need to put forth additional effort to accumulate any more.</i><br /><br />Belief is surely more nuanced and complex than that. <br /><br />William James, in <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/will/" rel="nofollow">The Will to Believe</a>, classifiesPubliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30629998646867431612019-02-10T06:39:27.906-08:002019-02-10T06:39:27.906-08:00> "accepting something as a plausible hypo...> "accepting something as a plausible hypothesis" -- isn't that the act of "belief"?<br /><br />No. Belief happens after you've accumulated enough evidence that you don't feel the need to put forth additional effort to accumulate any more.<br /><br />> You choose unskillfully.<br /><br />One of the things that I believe is that the Bible is a work of human Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60477512549742134092019-02-09T21:55:53.170-08:002019-02-09T21:55:53.170-08:00You've done it
>> You have undoubtedly ...<b>You've done it</b><br /><br />>> You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.<br /><br />@Ron<br /><i>>Don't confuse accepting something as a plausible hypothesis worthy of further investigation, and accepting something as the truth.</i><br /><br />"accepting something as a plausible hypothesis" -- isn't that the act of "Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36476406246573914522019-01-30T22:17:53.197-08:002019-01-30T22:17:53.197-08:00> You have undoubtedly employed such a process ...> You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.<br /><br />Don't confuse accepting something as a plausible hypothesis worthy of further investigation, and accepting something as the truth.<br /><br />> Why do you assume the goal is to find truth?<br /><br />I don't. I *choose* to seek the truth.<br /><br />> Truth is over-rated.<br /><br />I Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-77509990029186570172019-01-30T20:15:16.250-08:002019-01-30T20:15:16.250-08:00John 14:27
>you must believe first, then you ...<b><a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A27&version=NIV" rel="nofollow">John 14:27</a></b><br /> <br />>you must believe first, then you will get the proof<br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>That is a recipe for finding demagoguery, not truth.</i><br /><br />You have undoubtedly employed such a process many times in your life already.<br />1. A significant life Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3710558401441128522019-01-30T03:12:52.009-08:002019-01-30T03:12:52.009-08:00> you must believe first, then you will get the...> you must believe first, then you will get the proof<br /><br />That is a recipe for finding demagoguery, not truth.<br /><br />> When there isn't new content, you turn to re-runs.<br /><br />There's a lot of new content on the internet every day. Why pick on me?<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-7956376024449188872019-01-29T19:35:54.997-08:002019-01-29T19:35:54.997-08:00Now in syndication
@Ron:
>@Publius: why are yo...<b>Now in syndication</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>@Publius: why are you suddenly posting all these comments in all these long-dormant threads?</i><br /><br />When there isn't new content, you turn to re-runs. Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-36399864853728549052019-01-29T19:34:46.423-08:002019-01-29T19:34:46.423-08:00IF you wan to know the secret of the Colonel's...<b>IF you wan to know the secret of the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices, you need to work for KFC first</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>But even if he did, any deity that requires belief without evidence as the price of salvation is not worthy of respect (let alone worship).</i><br /><br /><br />This is how it works:<br /><a href="https://goo.gl/o1iQQC" rel="nofollow">Matthew 13:1-23</a><br />Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72311372638644902962019-01-20T03:26:27.651-08:002019-01-20T03:26:27.651-08:00@Publius: why are you suddenly posting all these c...@Publius: why are you suddenly posting all these comments in all these long-dormant threads?<br /><br />> 4. A process to know God exists, but you refuse to follow it. Or, you start it, then drop out. Matthew 13:18-30<br /><br />I'll see your Mat13:18-30 and raise you Deu18:21-22, Luke21:32 and Mark16:18.<br /><br />> 5. You worship your intellect, a form of neo-paganism. Romans 10:3<Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35592207066951295202019-01-20T02:05:22.518-08:002019-01-20T02:05:22.518-08:00The Process Is What It Is, Not What You Would Wish...<b>The Process Is What It Is, Not What You Would Wish It To Be</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br />> In fact, that I am even *able* to sustain a disbelief in God shows that one of the following must be true:<br />> <br />> 1. God doesn't know what would convince me<br />> <br />> 2. God knows, but chooses not to do (or is incapable of doing) what would convince me<br />> <br />> 3.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9758112161311999882018-08-09T14:52:53.269-07:002018-08-09T14:52:53.269-07:00@Ron:
> Are you being intentionally obtuse?
N...@Ron:<br /><br />> Are you being intentionally obtuse?<br /><br />No. The fact that you're currently within some acceptable ε of someone else after some number of updates doesn't mean that you both won't continue changing well outside of ± ε. Now, perhaps you were thinking of converging on only 0 or 1? If that's the case, I want to know how to think of all the evidence which <iLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11664231429607675482018-08-09T11:54:18.328-07:002018-08-09T11:54:18.328-07:00@Luke:
> I've never seen a theorem applied...@Luke:<br /><br />> I've never seen a theorem applied via "a matter of taste".<br /><br />Are you being intentionally obtuse? The theorem itself is not a matter of taste. The theorem tells you that given the same evidence, two Bayesian reasoners will converge to the same posterior probability regardless of their priors. What is a matter of taste is choosing the cutoff Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-21170301974218053252018-08-09T10:06:01.182-07:002018-08-09T10:06:01.182-07:00@Ron:
> > Then how are you using the Bernst...<a href="?commentPage=1#c2783815745121011547" rel="nofollow">@Ron</a>:<br /><br />> > Then how are you using the Bernstein–von Mises theorem?<br /><br />> To show that the initial choice of priors don't matter in the long run.<br /><br />I've never seen a theorem applied via <a href="?commentPage=1#c7370580914196594380" rel="nofollow">"a matter of taste"</a>. Either theLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14767665857977928992018-08-09T09:25:53.454-07:002018-08-09T09:25:53.454-07:00@Peter Donis: (2/2)
> If one person is trying ...@Peter Donis: (2/2)<br /><br />> If one person is trying to convince another person of the truth, there is no such thing as "consent".<br /><br />Within a given formal system, I agree. Outside of everyone choosing to work within a given formal system, there are a plurality of ways to systematically represent phenomena. (Even measures of simplicity require some reference description Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-5610494759083481382018-08-09T09:25:45.832-07:002018-08-09T09:25:45.832-07:00@Peter Donis: (1/2)
> A good collection of dat...@Peter Donis: (1/2)<br /><br />> A good collection of data supporting this is in E. T. Jaynes's book, Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science. He uses Bayesian methods repeatedly to obtain results that are borne out by actual data, but which were either not reached at all by scientists in other fields, or were only reached after a much more laborious process of reasoning (that often endedLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-52783981405716440762018-08-07T21:07:07.258-07:002018-08-07T21:07:07.258-07:00And now, for a brief intermission: A parable about...And now, for a brief intermission: A parable about Cthulhu and ants: "<a href="https://dxmedstudent.tumblr.com/post/176227151572/drackir-weasowl-20thcenturyvole" rel="nofollow">This is the best explanation for higher powers I’ve ever really heard.</a>"<br /><br />P.S. Thanks Peter, for offering the Jaynes reference.Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40752901477960849412018-08-07T17:34:46.555-07:002018-08-07T17:34:46.555-07:00@Luke:
there would be zero consensual relationship...@Luke:<br /><i>there would be zero consensual relationship, just domination. It's not even clear to me what 'consent' would be</i><br /><br />If one person is trying to convince another person of the truth, there is no such thing as "consent". You don't "consent" to the truth. You either believe it, or you don't, but in either case, your relationship with Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-29635177627163896482018-08-07T17:28:55.209-07:002018-08-07T17:28:55.209-07:00@Luke:
Do you know this to be true based on anythi...@Luke:<br /><i>Do you know this to be true based on anything empirical whatsoever, or have merely defined it to be true?</i><br /><br />I've given one reference just now in response to Don.Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-77557590085644374052018-08-07T17:26:52.098-07:002018-08-07T17:26:52.098-07:00@Don:
the answer, in the real world, is #1.
A goo...@Don:<br /><i>the answer, in the real world, is #1.</i><br /><br />A good collection of data supporting this is in E. T. Jaynes's book, Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science. He uses Bayesian methods repeatedly to obtain results that are borne out by actual data, but which were either not reached at all by scientists in other fields, or were only reached after a much more laborious processPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10894728090352230712018-08-07T14:24:00.325-07:002018-08-07T14:24:00.325-07:00@Ron:
> In fact, that I am even *able* to sust...@Ron:<br /><br />> In fact, that I am even *able* to sustain a disbelief in God shows that one of the following must be true:<br />> <br />> 1. God doesn't know what would convince me<br />> <br />> 2. God knows, but chooses not to do (or is incapable of doing) what would convince me<br />> <br />> 3. God made me in such a way that *nothing* will convince me<br />> <brLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.com